[TomasUSMC]

The navy is still stuck in the past. 80 mile range, who is that supposed to impress? Jets cover 80 miles in a moment and can unleash missiles that travel much farther. Ships are too slow, 1 round every ten seconds, wupee. Thats nothing new. And a 155mm shell compared to a 16" shell is again, nothing. The problem with Battleships is the crew is so large.

For 3 billion a piece, we ought to be able to build submersible vtol supersonic aircraft carriers. Oh, throw in stealth in there too.

[Explodo]

"And a 155mm shell compared to a 16" shell is again, nothing."

Depends on the makeup of said round...one of the 155 rounds containing a tungston or DU sabot would have a much greater impact than a 16 inch shell...And, are 16" shell directable? No sir.

[LasVegasMac]

For 3 billion a piece, we ought to be able to build submersible vtol supersonic aircraft carriers.

LOL.

You might get a decent snorkle for that price.

LVM

[EQAndyBuzz]

"For 3 billion a piece, we ought to be able to build submersible vtol supersonic aircraft carriers. Oh, throw in stealth in there too."

Submersible vtol supersonic aircraft carriers?

[Modernman]

Jets cover 80 miles in a moment and can unleash missiles that travel much farther.

Jets require a base or an aircraft carrier. This ship does not.

For 3 billion a piece, we ought to be able to build submersible vtol supersonic aircraft carriers. Oh, throw in stealth in there too.

I doubt it. 3 billion isn't all that much when it comes to super-advanced weapons systems.

[Tallguy]

And a 155mm shell compared to a 16" shell is again, nothing.

I don't know if you caught the part about the 155 gun having the ability to have multiple rounds impact on target simultaneously. With this capability, the 155 would have more destructive power than a single 16" gun. I would exclude certain 'hardened' bunkers from that statement, but you'll probably need an aircraft for that anyway...